Summary: Ms D complains about the Council’s decision regarding adaptations to her home. The Ombudsman has not found any evidence of fault by the Council and has completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council has incorrectly decided not to install a wet room in her home and says she needs to have a through floor lift installed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. The Ombudsman cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. He must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3))
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have spoken to Ms D and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response and case file.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms D lives alone in a house where the bathroom is upstairs. She self-referred to the Council’s Kent Enablement at Home Service in 2018. It placed Ms D on the waiting list for an Occupational Therapist (OT) assessment. The OT assessment was carried out on 20 July. The OT’s notes show he assessed Ms D’s mobility which was limited and that she struggled using the stairs. To meet her current and future needs improved access to the upstairs area was required. He found the layout of the stairs meant a stair lift could not be installed. The only other option was a through floor lift which Ms D did not want. The adaptations to make the bathroom into a flush floor shower room would be dependent on better access to it. On 8 August, the OT advised Ms D of his findings. Ms D said her District Council had previously stated she could have a flush floor shower room fitted. The next day the OT contacted the District Council who confirmed that was not the case.
7. On 17 August Ms D’s MP wrote to the Council stating Ms D had previously been told she could have a flush floor shower room. The Council replied on 13 September. It confirmed the OT’s findings and why a flush floor shower room would not be installed at present.
8. On 12 October Ms D called the Council again asking for a flush floor shower room. An Officer explained why this was not possible. In November Ms D’s son (Mr A) complained to the Council. As part of its complaint investigation the Council had an OT meet Ms D at home at the start of December. That OT again found a stair lift could not be installed and in order to access the bathroom Ms D would need a through floor lift fitted. If this was done a flush floor shower room could then be installed also. Ms D was firm that she did not want a through floor lift. As part of the investigation the Council also made checks with Ms D’s GP. Ms D had told the Council she hoped future surgery would allow her to better use the stairs and access her bathroom. The GP told the Council that it had no plans for any surgery for Ms D.
9. The Council wrote to Mr A at the end of December. It confirmed its assessments and that unless Ms D agreed to a through floor lift it could not adapt the bathroom.
10. On 4 January 2019, the Council arranged for the OT and a stair lift technician to visit Ms D. The technician confirmed to her that it was not possible to install a stair lift and a through floor lift was the only other option. Ms D remained clear she did not want this. The OT advised her the case would be closed by the Council but it would reassess if her needs changed.

What should have happened

11. When a person with limited mobility wants adaptations to their home they can make a referral to the Council. The Council’s Kent Enablement at Home Service deals with the case. It will get an OT to visit the applicant’s home and assess the property and the applicant. The OT will consider whether an applicant can safely access rooms and facilities. For an OT to recommend an adaptation they must find it is “necessary and appropriate” to meet the applicant’s current and future needs and also be practical for the layout of the property. If an OT finds adaptations sought by the applicant are not possible they can suggest alternatives.
12. If an applicant refuses the adaptations proposed by the Council there is no duty on the Council to do any further works unless the applicant makes a fresh referral because their needs have changed.

Was there fault by the Council

13. Ms D wants the Council to install a flush floor shower room and disagrees with its decision. I have not found evidence of fault by the Council in its assessments during 2018 and 2019. The evidence shows me that Officers followed the correct process. Two OT assessments have both concluded that Ms D cannot safely or easily access the first floor of her home and this needs to be resolved before her bathroom can be adapted. The Council also made further checks with Ms D’s GP and had a technician assess the property to ensure it had fully considered matters. It remains the case that unless Ms D agrees to a through floor lift the Council will not adapt her bathroom. That is a decision the Council is entitled to make even though Ms D disagrees with it. The Ombudsman cannot question the validity of a decision in the absence of any procedural fault: that applies to this case.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have completed the investigation and not upheld the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman